Am I the only person that thinks most new release games for my PS3/360 seem like last-gen games and aren't worth $60.

I can't bring myself to pay full price for 99% of new release games anymore, the systems are pushed to far and the graphics are either too blurry, choppy, screen tearing etc.

Although I think GTA6, Last of Us and Bioshock Infinite may be exceptions (largely due to wealth of content or innovative experiences). Most games however, just aren't impressive enough to warrant AAA prices. They're last gen games to me. It's like paying $60 for a PS2 remake.

Seriously, if this is a measly 5 hour game on normal difficulty I'm not buying it. Hunter mode is a cheap distraction. If they can't create a single player that last's more than 10 hours, considering it's more open world than Crysis 2, you would've thought they could include more.

This is starting to look like a stupid tech demo. Multiplayer was garbage. Hunter mode was a distraction; something that loses all its novelty after not very long. Plus with cloak suit it's practically a camper's dream. Now you have people sitting and waiting while being invisible so you have no chance of not getting killed by them. If you have a PC this game's only redeeming factor is that it's really good looking provided you were nerdy enough to spend 2 grand on your PC to make Crysis 3 run on ultra high settings.

Bingo. There's a reason that PC elitists only ever talk about the graphics of Crysis and never the gameplay, it's because the games are rubbish.

The only reason they buy these games is because there's literally nothing else out there that makes use of their ridiculously overpriced graphics cards, and Crytek only pushes these games out to flog their Cryengine to an industry that has no interest since there are vastly superior engines already being used out there.

I'm exactly the same. I haven't bought a full price game in months, in fact, the last full priced game I bought was Ratchet and Clank's HD TRILOGY on PS3 last week for £24. Those are last gen games! Even they weren't £40.

sadly. many fps games are MP based so now they put so little in the SP campaign and thats sad bc i love the sp more than most mp. CooP is hella fun though.

If your into the crisis style then id guess youll love this C3. personally, Id love to see a 60 hr. campaign with no mp in a open game like this. That id pay 60 dollars for. Im tired of so many mp games. Hell they've even did a horrible thing and stick it in Tomb Raider.

Many, many, many, many game developers have proven this theory otherwise a thousand times over... you can do both with decent strategy perfectly fine, SP/MP providing you know how to balance the multiplayer aspects of course which tends to take experience. - Not a company out there has the excuse of having "problems devoting resources" to one side or the other in a MP/SP game... They already know their budgets, therefore no excuse. They can clearly do BOTH equally as it's been shown before many times.. therefore I (sometimes) blame the garbage developers *BUT* more than likely it's the publisher pushing the developers too hard to CASH IN on the gaming community in the cheapest way possible by splitting a "too small of a budget", or a "CHEAP" publisher budget between SP/MP instead of doing the most logical thing and making the community happy as well as cashing in. - I wrote an article over a year ago saying this is Cryteks last chance to fix their Crysis series with their fans (after Crysis 2 travesty)... everyone kindly agreed, well... this is it. GG Crytek... this is a fail.

(Bottom line, literally. If you can't split a decent enough budget -knowingly ahead of time- in order to make both SP/MP then do one or the other.. so simple). Crytek is HUGE, no excuse.

Five hours for one reviewer isn't indicative that it will be 5 hours for everyone. It's probably 6-8 for a normal player, maybe 8+ if you're the kind of person who likes top stop and smell the flowers and just enjoy the scenery (which is something you should always do in a Crysis game)

Yes and I'm one of those people. I like to take my time and not rush through the game. Especially, if there is stuff to collect then I try to search every nook and cranny. Even then, I still miss stuff and have to go through it again for the trophies of course...haha. I really don't see the point in rushing through games because you can miss stuff and are not getting the full experience the developer envisioned. I just like to take my time and just take everything in and feel like I got my money's worth. Unfortunately, I'm on a budget and won't pick this up on launch so I'll definitely feel like I got my money's worth when it's cheaper. That's a win in my book.

I dont rush either but this is absurd. Am i the only one that feels crysis 3 was kinda rushed to get out before gen cycle ended. It actually looks alot like what crysis 2 should have and at 5 hrs and limited improvemwnts other than polish and pc upgrade is more like an expansion.

Honestly i wish games like crysis, cod,battlefield would just do multiplayer. Sell it for $60 with 2x as many maps...put the effort there. Or go free to play for multiplayer with big updates. If u wanna tell another story, sell it for $25 and whoever wants it can buy it.

The model is changing completely. The market is saturated and gamers just wont shell out $60 anymore for 5 hr campaigns. I cant wait to see the numbers on DS3, Aliens, Crysis 3 and metal gear rising. Personalky, i think MGR will do the best because it is different but i dont think these games will sell like they once did.

Crysis' main component has always been the SP. The campaign isn't 5 hours, multiple people on Crydev confirmed the length to be 7-8 hours. On a higher difficulty, without rushing, 10 hours sounds reasonable.

It took me 2 years to finish Darksiders. Played it non stop until I felt I'm around 3/4 of the campaign and then I stopped. Then just a couple month before Darksiders 2 came out I replayed the first one and actually finished it.

Yeah, me and my friends want to grab this. However, we can't justify the price. Games are too expensive to just simply go out and buy for the sake of it.

MP is a huge aspect, but quality should be applied across all sectors. On the other hand, everyone plays games differently. So I would use that as an average, rather than an accurate means of measurement.

5 hours seems short. But if you take a step back and think about this then A ) the magazine had a deadline as it needed to go to print and was the first review, meaning the reviewer was most likely pressed for time.

B) when crysis 2 was released some reviewers claimed it was 6 hours long, which turned out to be not true for the majority of players (although some finished in 4 hours, but others finished In 15), this seems to show that there is quite a lot of variation in play styles that can affect time.

The only way we will really know for sure is when more reviews are up.

i am gonna disagree with 4th reason ...i work 55 hours a week and at the end of the weekend i want a game which with good plot...i dont like to watch television and all that crap on TV...and due to some rigional problems my internet connect is shitty so there goes my chance to play with my friends online...so at the end of the day i just want a game with good storyline and a loooong campaign.

Hell ya man, It's most likely going for next gen consoles. But I'm a PC gamer so I'll be getting it for that just lik I'm doing for Crysis 3 because I don't want to get blurred out, you know what I'm saying.

I see all this crysis hate on n4g but why? I hear most of you saying all crytek does is just focus on graphics and the gameplay is crap. I question if these people have actually played a crysis game...I mean compare crysis to its genre.. cod, halo, and battlefield. You get something in between, a mixture of all three. For what it is the gameplay is far from crap and the story and length? Yeah like those other games have good stories and substance.. Come on son -_- the gameplay is fun..and more inventive than cod, and battlefield...with many different ways to approach battle, with your kick ass suit and all. Its more realistic then halo, the multilayer is like a mix between cod and halo. And it looks better than all 3. What more do you want?

Some people rush it, some people take their time and watch the scenery. I was one of the latter, but as the time goes by I started to find it difficult than ever to make time for gaming, therefore in a weird way I kind of like games with shorter campaigns better now. Even though I'd like to take my time, I find myself rushing thinking that I've got other things to do and other games to play, which is a shame.

As much as I love games like Dark Souls, I generally leave them unbeat due to shortage of time, and I really, really hate doing that. Besides we're having at least three good releases every month, shorter games allow you to move on to the others and by doing so you don't miss anything.

That being said, 6 hours for an FPS campaign is perfectly fine. It should be 9 at maximum, which you can actually achieve if you don't rush it, and longer than that is stretching it. The game gets repetitive and tiresome after a while, and you start to lose your interest by the time you reach the ending, which should be the "climax" of the game. I'd rather have quality over quantity, as long as that 6 hours contain gorgeous game design I wouldn't mind at all.

Arguments can be made about shorter, linear campaigns. I won't deny that. But ever since CoD MW, Crytek has done all it can to be just like it. Crysis: Warhead anyone?

Crysis was great for its simplistic approach. Give player 4 suit powers, big areas, a couple of objectives, and let them loose. You could complete it in 10 hrs or 20 hrs depending on how you played. The ai sucked in many areas but still managed to sneak up on me from time to time.

Crysis 2 was just not as fun, to me. I couldn't just stop and commit mass deforestation(I know there were no trees) for no reason, there was always someone screaming in my ear pulling me to the next concrete pathway. I was no longer a soldier with an advanced suit, but a magical superhero. It lost me. (Technically, when it was announced Crysis 2 would be set NYC was when it lost me. Waited till a price drop and when it came back to Steam to give it a go.)

Now here comes Crysis 3. I've gone from Crysis being one of my personal top 3, to not even caring at all about Crysis 3. That's what's sad.

Despite my personal feelings, I hope its successful. Because if Crysis 2 was to others the way Crysis was to me then they deserve to continue having that experience.